Page 1 of 59 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 582

Thread: A deeper think about beakers and genes

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,694
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    A deeper think about beakers and genes

    The issue of the problems in the radiocarbon curve and the choice of dating materials in major. It was criticised recently in Background to Beakers. He suggested that radiocarbon dating simply doesnt work in distinguishing 2600-2900BC. He also notes that there is a problem in some areas when all dates other than 'gold standard' dates on articulated human bone, short life materials etc are rejected. Although logical to be suspicious of such dates, there are areas like Holland where soil conditions destroy bones and rejection of charcoal samples means rejection of almost all dates for the area. That will inevitably mean ruling out of some areas as the origin point whether deserved or not. There is also a major question about what materials these Iberian samples came from. So much burial is collective too that you wonder how safe they are. Also, shells are a problem for dating. Finally diet using non-terrestrial resources can make radiocarbon dates come out too old. So, the potential diet of the person in question needs considered and indeed some sort of testing of the same samples might need done to establish this. Even with the sort of extra care I am suggesting, this still would not remove the problem of theradiocarbon curve and the impossibility of distinguising between 2600 and 2900BC even on the safest short-life materials.

    What the critic of the early dates did state, and I would agree with this to some extent, is that if RC dating cannot reliably sort the beaker issue, traditional methods of looking at bell beaker cultural and social practices and typology of artifacts should be used to find the likely origin. IMO, bell beaker looks very much like a pottery with no local source in Iberia but plenty of very good potential ancestors in central and eastern Europe at the right time.

    Let me put one hypothetical scenario, given the problem in narrowing a date between 2600 and 2900BC. Contacts on the existing copper networks are key. Perhaps someone in the western Alps c. 2700BC was in contact with Corded Ware groups as well as the older pre-beaker copper network. An alliance could have been established by someone in say SE France by a marriage to other copper groups in the west Med. The woman involved may have come from a tradition where similar pots were made and transferred the idea and skill further west. That way the apparent gap between early beaker in the west Med. and similar pottery in central Europe could have been bridged by a single woman. We tend to forget how important women were both for elite alliance marriages and for pottery making.

    Once on the Med. a novel pot tradition could move about along the Med. copper network in multiple directions through further alliance marriages. This way the initial spread of what appears to be a central or east European tradition and some of its initial patterning may have little to do with male lineages. There has been a paper about mt haplogroup H increasing and spreading in the beaker period temporarilly into central Europe. Again this could be a crucial marriage alliance phenomenon as the networks of central Europe and the Med. met and its easy to see too how these women could have had a major role in the spread of pottery traditions and convergence.

    Its also important to note that while maritime beaker has been seen as a SW European thing that spread, many of the other forms are not. A recent paper on the other domestic beaker ware we see, even in the isles although the paper does not cover the isles, such as polypod pods etc almost all come from the east. It is also true that quite a few of the aspects that we tend to think of as classic beaker, often things that make the case for a sharp social change/migration, do not occur in the early beaker phase in Iberia including single burial traditions and the classic beaker skull.

    We should not lose sight of the fact that it is still very much interpretable as a contact network which more likely featured low level constant movement of individuals of both genders rather than some sort of Hollywood invasion. A multiple direction network like that is very very hard to look at and work out the genetic outcomes and both y and mt lines could have been incorporated within it and diffused at many times, places and directions. Male lineage movement IMO would only tend to happen when they either were welcomed as metallurgists or if they could move into an area that in pre-beaker times was not very well settled or important to the locals but useful for them or a bit of both. In other areas where their specialism was already wrapped up by earlier groups I suspect the geneflow may have been more female and alliance based. However, as traders it may have been very complex with middle men etc.

    I have deliberately not got onto the issue of yDNA clades etc because I think first we need to imagine how it worked in a more detailed way. Some of the interpretations are far too one dimensional and perhaps a little desperate to get a simply yDNA wave sort of answer. That can lead to the wrong conclusions. So, I really just want to start a conversation on looking at it in a more nuanced way than it tends to be rather than claim to have the answers right now. There is a massive gap geographically between the likely origin areas of R1b and many cultures in between it and beaker. I think a more nuanced, possibly more chaotic appearing initially, look at the network could ultimately bring us closer to the truth and might square the apparent problem of a west-east cultural spread being correlated with what must initially have been an east-west genetic spread. I am also not saying that this hasnt been discussed creatively already but I think some more prodding may be fruitful. I also think moving away from focussing too much on the earliest maritime beaker radiocarbon dating may be required given the issues with this.

    My instincts plus some knowledge on the phylogeny of R1b make me feel that we are too hung up on the idea of a single beaker culture linked to some sort of branching from maritime beaker in Iberia. An important question is what useful role could a literal beaker colonisation from Iberia actually provide along the west Med. - a region that already had copper working and in some experts opinions it was more varied and impressive in pre-beaker times. You could also ask why a group in a very copper rich area like Iberia would spread into an area like SE France or the Alps which already had a well established copper working tradition. I think in such a zone alliance and cultural diffusion through wives travelling may have been important in converging the tradition without coming into conflict.

    It is however a different story in some parts of temperate Europe where developed local copper working and more importantly mining were unknown before the beaker age. In those areas there clearly would have been an advantage in letting in male lineages and specialists. That could be the reason why beaker tends to avoid initially or only slightly overlap the Corded Ware areas. The latter had their own copper working traditions although I am not sure about mining. However, beaker metallurgists would have had something approaching carte blanche in north Atlantic Europe and really would have served an important function without coming into conflict by replicating existing specialists power bases. In such areas, there would probably have been a real desire to allow beaker male lines in.

    The attitude of corded ware areas to allowing new metallurgical beaker groups in is slighly more tricky to interpret. Corded Ware is a vast area and as far as I understand there is not much evidence of mining across it. However, similar arsenical copper is known in both beaker and corded ware contexts in the same area and probably the same central European sources. Its likely that there was no unity within the huge corded ware area and in particular it may have been easy to play groups off against each other if you could form an alliance to provide alternative metal sources to people at the end of the existing chain, particularly those in the west and north more peripheral to the source, putting them a little closer to the top of the new chain Once established the cultural and trade influence could have been spread wider through alliance marriages, perhaps the source of the suggested sudden temporary spread of mt H in beaker period central Europe.

    So, although not at all chaos, the genetic impact of these networks, marriage alliances and vary degree of need to allow new male lines to settle would have been very complex.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Ian B (09-25-2013)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,798
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Italo-Iberian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+L2+FGC10543
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1-T152C!

    United States of America Italy 1861-1946 Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    My instincts plus some knowledge on the phylogeny of R1b make me feel that we are too hung up on the idea of a single beaker culture linked to some sort of branching from maritime beaker in Iberia. An important question is what useful role could a literal beaker colonisation from Iberia actually provide along the west Med. - a region that already had copper working and in some experts opinions it was more varied and impressive in pre-beaker times. You could also ask why a group in a very copper rich area like Iberia would spread into an area like SE France or the Alps which already had a well established copper working tradition. I think in such a zone alliance and cultural diffusion through wives travelling may have been important in converging the tradition without coming into conflict.
    Most of the serious studies on metallurgy from the last 15 years see the metallurgy of southern France originating in the Rinaldone Culture (Strahm, Vaquer, Sangmeister). We also see Remedello Culture triangle daggers spilling out over the western Alps into France and Switzerland. I've always found the idea of an independent Iberian Copper Age rather unlikely, so these folks may already have been DF27 by the time they moved into the southern slopes of the Pyrenees.
    Paternal: R1b-U152 >> L2 >> FGC10543 >> PR5365, Pietro Rocca, b. 1559, Agira, Sicily, Italy
    Maternal: H4a1-T152C!, Maria Coto, b. ~1864, Galicia, Spain
    Mother's Paternal: J1+ FGC4745/FGC4766+ PF5019+, Gerardo Caprio, b. 1879, Caposele, Avellino, Campania, Italy
    Father's Maternal: T2b-C150T, Francisca Santa Cruz, b.1916, Garganchon, Burgos, Spain
    Paternal Great (x3) Grandfather: R1b-U106 >> L48 >> CTS2509, Filippo Ensabella, b.~1836, Agira, Sicily, Italy

  4. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    474
    Sex
    Location
    Northern CA Wine Country
    Ethnicity
    95% N. European 5% Other
    Nationality
    American Mutt
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L2-FGC22501 hus.
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a1b2 16362

    England Germany Sweden Scotland Norway United States of America
    Rich,

    Although no where close to expert as you I agree whole heartedly with several of your comments. I especially like this.

    A multiple direction network like that is very very hard to look at and work out the genetic outcomes and both y and mt lines could have been incorporated within it and diffused at many times, places and directions.
    We should understand that with humans things are seldom simple and we often miss the obvious. A National Geographic Children's book about Stonehenge called "If these Stones Could Speak" by Marc Aronson. The book points out how someone looking at a situation with new eyes can see things that dominant thinking has missed. Expectations often blind us to new truths.


    "Really it is about putting aside what you think you know, what has been passed along, and being willing to trust what you yourself see and to test it rigorously."
    I applaud you all for your continued work to unravel what really happened...and not just what our vested interests want.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Kwheaton For This Useful Post:

     GoldenHind (11-22-2014)

  6. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,694
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    I must admit I am really fascinated by these pre-beaker copper groups, the big Italian connections in the Alps etc. I suppose the bottom line is phylogeny. We just cannot link in a literal maritime beakers=R1b way. It just doesnt work if an east-west phylogeny is explained by a west-east spread. It also is very hard to see even early beaker pot as having a far western root. It just fits far better into the sort of pottery seen in eastern and central Europe c. 4000-3000BC. The attempt to derive them from pre-beaker Iberian cupos is sheer desperation as their is no resemblance at all.

    I suggested some sort of spread of beaker type ideas coming from west central Europe c. 2700BC through alliance marriages. I would see them as evidence that ideas could be spreading with alliance marriages. There were probably contacts already relating to copper technology a little before 3000BC and maritime beaker in itself shows another link c. 2700BC. As I said, there feels to me like a selling sand to the arabs thing about the 2nd phase link. I wonder if the purpose of the SE France -Iberia link shown through maritime beaker was primarily some sort of attempt to link westernmost corded ware groups at the head of the Rhone bypassing the existing localised copper using groups in southern France and the Alps, trying to establish a new link of supply. I have read a paper that suggested some of the copper age local groups used metal to display localised identity and may have tried to exclude others from it rather than a beaker style networking spread of a uniform identity. The basic idea is that beaker-like corded ware pots could have traveled down the Rhone to SE Med France and onto Iberia with diplomatic marriages with corded ware females who had headed south and west. That could explain how a general form that is basically alien to SW Europe got there. The maritime beaker form could have developed there when the pot form was combined with some local decorative ideas and soon after could have made it way again in this transformed style. The impulse for contact could have originated in the easily won copper of Iberia, connected groups in SE France etc trying to establish a mutually beneficial network linking the west Med. with the west Alpine zone and beyond.

    In terms of the possibility of contact between Iberia and central Europe c. 2700BC perhaps the origin of the beaker type pot shape heading to SW Europe, it is worth noting that Harrison and Heyd comment on stray evidence of such contacts:

    "Even in the south west of Europe, there are clear signs of the first transformation horizon, connecting Iberia to Atlantic France and the Rhine delta. Scattered across northern Spain are a few perforated battle axes,of various styles, dated to the first half of the third millennium BC; they are clearly exotic pieces, well outside their usual range of distribution (Delibes de Castro1995; Estremera Portela/Fabián García 2002, fig.6,30–31). Probably belonging to the same ideological milieu are the daggers of flint and copper, known from the collective tombs of central Portugal, the Algarve and Andalusia from the earlier third millennium BC(Leisner 1965)"

    Shortly after this perhaps it actually succeeded and this is what we see in the early phases at Sion where beaker ideas eclipse the old Remedello ones and beaker influences move into the Rhine area. I would imagine that that would have again potentially been down to pottery ideas travelling into that zone with alliance marriages. However, in this case they would also be opening up into a zone where metallurgists and prospectors would have more of a blank canvas. As far as I understand, the corded ware copper metal sources were much further east and the westernmost corded ware cultures may have been at the margin of its metal network.

    The question remains as to whether the beaker elements north of the Alps and around the Rhine were southerners or perhaps locals who had taken part in alliance marriages and heavily networked with the maritime beaker elements and were therefore beakerised locals in some way, perhaps acting as middlemen far from the actual sources. Some craniological work certainly appears to separate the early beaker elements in the west Med and south-west Alpine fringe from the later ones.

    In terms of genes, I think with the recent Tyrol results and other hobbiest data a case can be made that L51 is unlikely to be beaker period in origin. Its distirbution just doesnt correspond well with the earliest beakers. However, it does look like it was involved in some pre-beaker copper hotspots and sort of gives the impression it put out feelers into the fringes of the what would later be the southern part of the beaker network. However, I get the impression that L11 and then P312 arose in the western Alps area. So maybe it was involved in the feelers put out towards the west Med. from somewhere around the Alps to establish some sort of new link between that area and west central Europe and perhaps it somehow transferred the beaker type pot idea from corded ware contact, perhaps by sending west Alpine woman down the Rhone into south-west Europe in marriage alliances. It would be fairly natural in the Iberian-SE France strong contact zone for ideas to flow both ways with maritime beaker being its most likely expression. Its easy to see that zone as featuring both male and female gene flows with SE France being the link into temperate western Europe. The evidence of Sion seems to indicate truncation or muscling into that connection by central European elements from further east. In a way they may have reestablished the old supply network from the corded ware period and cut off the alternative route from the Med.

    That would have effected the area north and west of this eastern beaker group by putting them back at the far end of a central European chain instead of being primary middlemen. I wonder if this was a factor in the search for alternative sources in the NW Atlantic like Ross Island etc. Maybe discontented middlemen elements on the Rhine who had seen a more important position in a chain from the Med taken away from them with the east group dominance decided to look north-west.

    I have no idea how this would be explained in detail in terms of clades but I think its important before doing that to get a more vivid feel for what was going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard A. Rocca View Post
    Most of the serious studies on metallurgy from the last 15 years see the metallurgy of southern France originating in the Rinaldone Culture (Strahm, Vaquer, Sangmeister). We also see Remedello Culture triangle daggers spilling out over the western Alps into France and Switzerland. I've always found the idea of an independent Iberian Copper Age rather unlikely, so these folks may already have been DF27 by the time they moved into the southern slopes of the Pyrenees.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 09-24-2013 at 02:41 AM. Reason: Added quotation marks for Heyd to clarify

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Ian B (09-25-2013)

  8. #5
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,068
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    DF27, FGC15733
    mtDNA (M)
    T2f3

    I think there are some fundamentally sound principles in this thread, that are worth airing. I like the skepticism about putting all of the maritime beaker eggs in a basket woven from reeds of pretty debatable radiocarbon dating. And I like the emphasis on metallurgy, particularly of copper and its increasingly useful alloys. Some of the diplomatic marriage stuff seems anachronistic, to me -- I'm sure the wives are important, including those who made pottery, but I suspect they tended more to be in the nature of trade goods. The society appears to have been mostly impressed by tough guys and magicians, or anyway they could afford to pay the sculptors to leave that impression. And I don't think you've said much -- if anything -- about the boat builders and expert users, all trained by their daddies, without whom that long-distance metallurgical and ceramic networking wasn't possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    It just doesnt work if an east-west phylogeny is explained by a west-east spread.
    Completely agree --

    It also is very hard to see even early beaker pot as having a far western root.
    Yep.

    I get the impression that L11 and then P312 arose in the western Alps area.
    That, I don't really see. Maybe -- conceivably -- but it doesn't just slap me upside the head. To me it looks as if L11 and P312 need to have happened rather farther east.

    I have no idea how this would be explained in detail in terms of clades but I think its important before doing that to get a more vivid feel for what was going on.
    Maybe, hand in hand with doing that. If we really start taking seriously the increasingly refined phylogeny -- and reach some consensus on at least the relative ages of its branches -- a lot of "what was going on" (the stuff you archaeologists can find, wash the dirt off, and read the mystical messages it has left) is likely to get a radically different back story.

    I still need to spend some time with Jean Manco's new book -- she has a lot to say in this area, and some of it wasn't on her web pages before they came down.

  9. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,694
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Well if beaker people are proto-Italo-Celtic in some way, it is fair to note that women had quite a lot of protections and power in Celtic society compared to some. Unlike the Hollywood sort of image of the Celts, Celtic society had a lot of non-physical force powers in it through a large legal and religious specialist class and an elaborate legal system. Although men could have more than one wife and have as many mistresses as he wanted this came with responsibility for him and rights for her as well as the fact that all children had equal status whether born within or outwith wedlock. There were all sorts of complex dowry issues too. Celtic was really very much a rule of law and rule of the learned class sort of society internally. It was not the more rough and ready might is right sort of society of warlords and their followers in a hall sort of society. It had that aspect but it was a very complex litigious kind of society with a more developed structure than early Germanic society. I really think people get the wrong idea of these societies as a sort of anarchy ruled by the most ruthless. In fact they were a lot more evolved, complex and less bloody internally.

    One thing important to remember about the spread of beaker is that a significant part of its core spread area north of the Alps, west of the Rhine was into an area that was outside or on the outermost periphery of corded ware and whatever metal supply it provided. A heck of a lot of that area didnt have a developed native metal traditions and certainly a lack of mining etc. So, there really was a great opportunity there for people with developed metallurgy, mining etc to be welcomed with open arms. That opportunity didnt exist in quite the same way in Med., south Alpine, eastern or east-central Europe where existing metallurgical systems already existed.

    So, the social processes in different areas must have been significantly divergent. I get the impression that establishing power in the areas of Europe already with developed copper traditions must have required a lot more careful negotiation to avoid some nasty trade conflicts and wars. I often wonder about the outlying Csepel group on the islands on the Danube and adjacent in Hungary and how that worked.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Ian B (09-25-2013)

  11. #7
    Banned
    Posts
    13,888
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-Z253>BY93500
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    This thread and another recent thread made me think once again about why so many of us are interested in the whole Beaker Folk phenomenon.

    1. P312 is the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

    2. L21 is the dominant y haplogroup in the British Isles, including, and especially, Ireland; U152 is dominant in the Alps and in Italy; DF27 in Iberia and perhaps trans-Pyrenean France, etc.

    3. The germ line, haplotype variance based age estimates for P312 and its next generation subclades, like U152, L21, DF27, etc., land their nativities in the Bronze Age or perhaps the late Neolithic Period/Copper Age.

    4. Since it does not appear that P312's immediate ancestor, L11, was already established in the West at that time, P312 seems to have moved into western Europe from the east sometime after its birth.

    If P312's birth occurred in the Bronze Age or late Neolithic, and if it was not born in western Europe, then one naturally wonders not only how it got there but how it came to be so dominant there. So we look at that period - the Bronze Age or Copper Age - to see what might account for this phenomenon. We find the Beaker "package" spreading through western Europe at the time and wonder if it could provide the answer. We think that perhaps some or most of the Beaker men were P312+. We read that some scholars, like Hubert in the early 20th century, and Anthony today, believe that the Beaker Folk may have spread Italo-Celtic languages, and we see a pretty obvious correspondence between the distribution of the descendants of those languages and the distribution of P312 and its offshoots. Lastly, ancient y-dna is obtained from a Beaker burial in Kromsdorf, Germany, and in both cases it turns out to be R1bxU106 but was not tested for P312 (one M269+, the other M343+ but probably also at least M269+).

    So, although we don't really know how much of a "folk" the Beaker Folk really were, there is a circumstantial case building that puts them at the scene of the spread of P312 at about the right time . . . and direct evidence that at least two of them were in fact R1b but NOT U106.

    After all, what are the alternatives? Neolithic farmers? Possibly, but that would be stretching the margins of the age estimates, and thus far no R1b has turned up at any Neolithic sites anywhere, including places that are just lousy with R1b today. I fully realize variance-based age estimates are tenuous at best, so, no, I don't make all that much of them; but they are all we have.

    Could the y ancestors of P312 have arrived in Europe much earlier, in the Paleolithic or Mesolithic periods? Maybe, but does that seem likely?

    So, maybe some Beaker men spread P312 and its immediate offshoots. I can't think of likelier suspects, can you?
    Last edited by rms2; 09-24-2013 at 12:03 PM.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     Anglecynn (09-24-2013),  TigerMW (09-24-2013),  Webb (09-24-2013)

  13. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,694
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    I have in this thread been trying to reason through the push pull factors, where metallurgy was already developed, where it wasnt etc to try and think into how it really would have worked. A lot of the beaker patterns are probably down to competing groups and waxing and waning subnetworks of beaker using peoples. What I imagine is that beaker groups probably clashed with each other over controlling these networks but if they were really all desdended from one pretty recent P312 guy then they wouldnt have had the numbers to fall out with entire local populations. So, I imagine them more as competing and probably occasionally warring over trade and ore rather than land.

    The maritime beaker phase seems to me to primarily relate to west Med. copper elites trying to expand to reach a market in west central Europe whose copper since pre-beaker corded ware times had probably come from east-central European sources. The western periphery was probably far enough away from that supply chain that they would be open to being higher up a chain coming up the Rhone. As I suggested, it is likely that alliance marriages were one way of cementing this and perhaps responsible for the flow of mtH noted in a recent paper in central Europe. As well as making alliances the female flow would have also potentially been a factor in the flow of various pottery styles. That is not to say that male lineages did not also follow as traders, specialists etc as part of the deal. However, this role may have varied and they would need to have been welcomed by the locals. They may have bypassed areas where existing groups controlled copper sources as has been suggested in some parts of Languedoc etc and one would suspect elsewhere. I find the suggestion that some of the pre-beaker groups were inward looking and not interested in widespread trading of more uniform international types of symbols interesting. Its a very different outlook to beaker and may have made linking to the beaker network attractive. The origin of this attitude to trading could be the way metal worked in Iberia. Seemingly metal was easily won there and as a result its value may have been more in trading it outwards than an intrinsic value at home.

    At sion the pre-beaker copper age elements represented on some of the stelae included clear influence in terms of metallurgy from a network that included Remedello type daggers although the area was otherwise a local copper age culture. It has been argued that they are the same people taking up beaker traits via southern connections. That is possible but its also possible that they were simply very similar peoples that cant be distinguished craniologically from locals. On the other hand despite the Remedello daggers on the pre-beaker stelae, the people as far as I can gather (there seems to be a real block on Italian papers being published on google books, edu etc on the web) they were not of a similar craniological type to Remedello people. It seems that they were local Alpine clients groups who took influence from that direction rather than actual Remedello people. They may have been at the westernmost periphery of that zone of influence rather than at the centre of things. Maybe they preferred to become a less peripheral part of a new outward looking network actively interested in supplying that had a more proximate branch in SE France, ultimately linked to Iberia. I think the question as to how much of this involved movement and how much was the locals reflecting this new link is open although a bit of both is the easiest way to imagine it.

    The question then arises of what the beaker people could do for the various local groups. Some with their own copper sources and pre-beaker metal traditions didnt need them and possibly actively ignored them and/or were bypassed initially. There are pre-beaker mines or implied mining in several areas in north Italy and SE France and Iberia as well as further east in central Europe. So in these places mining and copper pre-se wouldnt be something that beaker people could dazzle locals with. Studies have shown that beaker metallurgy in itself was nothing special and apparently did not use any new types of copper not already used in eastern and central Europe, including by the corded ware cultures. So, it seems to me that the role beaker people could have had there is more to do with acting as middlemen and changing how metal was distributed, perhaps releasing some locals from more protective and exclusive use of metals or perhaps just simply a bad deal that existed there before. Whatever it was, I believe beaker people had to be invited in by the locals. The archaeological footprint of the beaker people's different attitude, which may have been the attraction, is the sudden explosion of uniform international status symbols compared to the more localised types that preceded them. In this way the beaker cultures internationalised things and broke down localism.

    It is interesting that in some areas like south-east France and I suppose also around Budapest that they used defended sites or naturally defensive positions. In those two examples they were within a zone with pre-beaker copper cultures. Maybe in such locations they were treading on the toes of the pre-beaker metal elites and at least initially may have been in danger. In other areas like Britain and Ireland everything points to being welcomed by the locals in terms of lack of defensive sites, burials right beside stonehenge etc etc.

    None of this really helps ID the exact story of P312 and subclades. The problem still remains that L51, L11 and P312 are best placed as originating in Alpine or central Europe rather than the far west. If the most commonly given variance dates are correct then the spread was from this area in the copper age. So, a simplistic interpretation as seeing maritime beaker as linked to the spread of P312 doesnt work. If anything it looks to me that true P312* is also looking likely to be more central European than south-western. So, either P312 in central or alpine Europe adopted the idea of beakers before spreading on the P312-R1b comination or P312 made it to Iberia before the beaker period with the pre-beaker copper culture there.

    I would raise a nuanced version of that. Perhaps P312 arrived with the basic idea of beaker type pots to Iberia from west central Europe c. 2700BC give or take a little as part of the founding of a trading connection with SE France with middlemen traders from that area arriving to create a mutually beneficial situation of creating an outlet for Portugal's copper wealth and creating a more proactive supply along the Med. and into the Alpine area. The idea of beaker type drinking vessels existed among the corded ware groups closeby in Switzerland around this time and the wobble in the radiocarbon curve cannot distinguise between a century or so either way in this period. Maybe some chap in the western fringes of the Alps had a wife from the nearby corded ware groups and the idea spread that way. Certainly the beaker phase did create a much wider outlet for Iberian metals than before. The arrival of P312 middlemen from somewhere like SE France or the Alpine fringes could have been very mutually beneficial. It would also explain the sudden shift in the way copper in Iberia worked. In pre-beaker times it has been recently argued that it was a rather mundane everyday thing and not widely traded. A sudden change to becoming part of a wide network could have been externally influenced by the same people who brought the beaker pot basic template to the area c. 2700BC. The beaker phase saw more of a revolution in networking in Med. and central Europe rather than a revolution in technology - it was already in place.

    That really makes me wonder who mr P312/L11 was who may have established this outward looking, networking aspect. I suspect on phylogeny alone that the person came from no further west than the Alps/SE France. It would also seem pretty essential that Mr P312 came from a culture with maritime skills given that Portugal is a bit of a leap from the next area of early beakers in SE France. A previous knowledge of copper must be factor and maybe a knowledge of or prior involvement in an immediate pre-beaker copper network. Mr P312 could either have been in an area marginalised from other sources, where a source dried up, could have been in an area where the current copper supply situation was unsatisfactory or despotic or could have just been a young buck looking for his own new source of power. Putting that CV together points in the direction of Liguria and its early mines to me. A tailing off of the second phase at Monte Lorretto c. 2600BC and similar in other Ligurian mines seems a reasonable interpretation of the radiocarbon dates there. Perhaps around or just before that period would make a lot of sense for those involved to look west to make connections with Iberia seeking to act as middlemen for the wealth there and bring it back in their general direction along the south of France and NW Italy coast. This area is linked by the Rhone and various passes to Switzerland where corded ware was known from c. 2700BC, a possible link that could have brought this alien pot shape to the west Med.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Ian B (09-25-2013)

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,798
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Italo-Iberian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+L2+FGC10543
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1-T152C!

    United States of America Italy 1861-1946 Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post

    ...

    At sion the pre-beaker copper age elements represented on some of the stelae included clear influence in terms of metallurgy from a network that included Remedello type daggers although the area was otherwise a local copper age culture. It has been argued that they are the same people taking up beaker traits via southern connections. That is possible but its also possible that they were simply very similar peoples that cant be distinguished craniologically from locals. On the other hand despite the Remedello daggers on the pre-beaker stelae, the people as far as I can gather (there seems to be a real block on Italian papers being published on google books, edu etc on the web) they were not of a similar craniological type to Remedello people. It seems that they were local Alpine clients groups who took influence from that direction rather than actual Remedello people. They may have been at the westernmost periphery of that zone of influence rather than at the centre of things. Maybe they preferred to become a less peripheral part of a new outward looking network actively interested in supplying that had a more proximate branch in SE France, ultimately linked to Iberia. I think the question as to how much of this involved movement and how much was the locals reflecting this new link is open although a bit of both is the easiest way to imagine it.

    ...
    Let's not forget however that, unlike the situation in Bavaria, the strontium isotopes of Sion's Bell Beaker skeletons show they are almost entirely local born and raised. The glaring outlier is the lone brachycephalic male who's values match better with water from the middle Rhine. His dating to 2400 BC also closely matches the smashing of the original stones.
    Paternal: R1b-U152 >> L2 >> FGC10543 >> PR5365, Pietro Rocca, b. 1559, Agira, Sicily, Italy
    Maternal: H4a1-T152C!, Maria Coto, b. ~1864, Galicia, Spain
    Mother's Paternal: J1+ FGC4745/FGC4766+ PF5019+, Gerardo Caprio, b. 1879, Caposele, Avellino, Campania, Italy
    Father's Maternal: T2b-C150T, Francisca Santa Cruz, b.1916, Garganchon, Burgos, Spain
    Paternal Great (x3) Grandfather: R1b-U106 >> L48 >> CTS2509, Filippo Ensabella, b.~1836, Agira, Sicily, Italy

  16. #10
    Banned
    Posts
    209
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    60%<Germanic, 15%<Celtic
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b1a2a1a L11+
    mtDNA (M)
    H64 sub of H33

    I am totally against the idea that non Germanic,, Italic, and Celtic people spread R1b1a2a1a L11 in Europe. From 22 Y DNa samples in southwestern France from 5,000ybp not one had R1b 19 had G2a typical for other Neolithic west European y Dna samples and 2 had I2a1a M26. So there is almost no way if Bell Beaker began in Iberia 4,800ybp or so that they are the source of dominate R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe. NO matter how u put it R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe came from a migration from the east and at some point originated in the Near east. Age estimates show it arrived in around Germany around just 5,000ybp. and its subclades then spreading in western Europe in the bronze age and after Bell Beaker culture technically ended. So I cant see grandson of L11 R1b Df27 spreading with bell Beaker over 4,000 years ago the spread of subclades P312 and U106 began around probably 4,500ybp. But then their subclades like Df27 did not begin to spread till at 3,500-4,500ybp at the very very very earliest.

    3,500-4,000ybp u see Nordic bronze age culture which has Kurgens which defintley show connections with the spread of Indo European languages. They also are considered the first Germanic culture which they almost deifntley were Germanic it shows a new group of Indo Europeans that migrated to north Europe from central Europe. Then u see Unetice culture in central Europe around 4,300ybp also had Kurgens it is deifntley ancestral to Italo Celts and maybe also Germanic's. There was a new migration of Indo Europeans into western Europe starting about 5,000ybp and spreading far about 4,5000ybp and I think archeology kind of backs it up. The age estimates for the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 also match.

    JUst because there are two 4,600ybp R1b samples from German Bell Beaker does not mean their the source. This totally fits the Germanic Italo Celtic idea because that is the exact spot they would have been 4,600ybp.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Fire Haired For This Useful Post:

     Reith (11-19-2014)

Page 1 of 59 1231151 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Need deeper (not basic) understand of snps
    By de Burgh in forum Inquiries Corner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-07-2019, 06:24 AM
  2. Deeper dive of L513 NGS results
    By TigerMW in forum L513
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-30-2015, 01:09 PM
  3. Replies: 157
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 09:40 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-09-2013, 10:00 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2013, 09:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •